Delta 3200 Professional Black and White Film Review | All About Film

[@richardsimms251]

I never quite knew how to use, or not use, this 3200 speed film. I appreciate this very helpful video. Thank you. RS. Canada

[@jxmstudio]

God damn David ! this video must have taken you a year to make ! so much information and so well presented... great job 👏

[@DavidHancock]

They you! About 6 years of image capture, around 1,000 hours of film developing, scanning, and editing photos, and about 60-100 hours to write, create content for, and make the final video. The upcoming ones for Kentmere and Ezox took less while the TMax and Delta 100 ones in finishing up are taking more. They're a lot of work. 😀

[@jxmstudio]

@@DavidHancock well… if you ever think bout doing paid KZbin / Patreon content. I’ll sign up… already watched 3 of your videos and bought a Minolta a9 on eBay… so… keep doing what you’re doing 🙌

[@DavidHancock]

@@jxmstudio thank you! I'm in the process of creating the stuff I need for channel memberships.

[@mathewrupp8568]

It would be interesting to compare Delta 400 pushed to 800, 1600 and 3200 and compare the results to pulled Delta 3200 pulled.

[@DavidHancock]

That could be an interesting test, though I don't think of Delta 400 as a film that pushes well (I could be wrong I haven't really dug into it for this series yet.)

[@1RJ2]

I shot a small concert on december with it and used the remaining frames for some indoor portraits of my family on Christmas. After much research I settled for 1600 and told my lab to develop at 3200. Im still waiting for the results but I'm now much more confident that at least the indoor shots are fine 😅

[@DavidHancock]

I think you'll be in good shape. That sounds like an exciting roll!

[@craigfouche]

Thanks so much for the review David, as always top notch!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Craig!

[@baiyunpeng2121]

I started shooting Delta 3200 because I didn't want to use a flash while photographing a concert. I usually meter under 1600, but in reality, I don't try the metering of my Minolta x700 in that lighting condition at the show. So I would say the shutter speed was usually around 1/30 - 1/125 range. Maybe even slower. I sent it to a local lab that uses DDX instead of the standard D-76 process. And process it like 3200, sometimes they throw in an extra two minutes. And the result is fabulous, I really appreciate the grain of this film. It's definitely noticeable but at least when processed using DDX it is not harsh at all. And I would say the grain of this film is very fitting for the genres of shows I usually go to. I love this film and I hope it will stick around so I can document the live shows in the film with relatively low effort.

[@DavidHancock]

Nice! That does sound like a great approach.

[@mrca2004]

I am a portrait guy and love it in 645 for the size of the grain developed in xtol. In 35 mm the grain can be a bit overpowering for me. I keep it in a yashica 6x6 for street portraits but look for low contrast light. I shoot it 1 stop over expose, at 1600 developing for 3200. On 6x6 grains becomes relatively smaller and believe it or not too small for what I use it for on 67. Unfortunately, kodak's 3200 doesn't come in 120, but I still prefer the lower contrast ilford. I can precisely adjust up contrast/ darks down in post. My other street camera a 35 mm nikon with another 50 mm lens has ilford hp5 that I can over expose 5 stops and have a near perfect image. Do that with digital and you have a white image. In studio for digital, to get a pure white background I light it about 4 stops reflective over subject incident.

[@DavidHancock]

Nice! I could see that working very, very well.

[@ganzonomy]

Can't wait to watch in HD! This is a film I've wanted to put through my 645n. Would you shoot at box or at 800 / 1600?

[@DavidHancock]

I shot it at 1250 and liked it there. This film works better pulled.

[@helicopterdongmaster]

Medium format Delta 3200 shot at 6400 and developed with ilfosol DDX 1:4 with 20% more development time is one of my go to’s if I’m shooting outdoors with low light situations. You know, hazy neon signs with shadowy details or somewhere outdoors, at night, that has mostly incandescent lights is where this film really shines. Since the film isn’t cubic, rather tabular, it needs a developer to suit its character. Hope this helps. Love your videos btw!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@jw48335]

Red filter ftw with 120 to tame the light😁 Fantastic coverage sir!

[@zacsmith2862]

Thanks David for you work in this series. For me I rate Delta 3200 at 3200 iso, but push it 2 stops in development. I use xtol myself while my lab uses d76. This gives me both a healthy exposure closer to your 800 iso examples while providing good contrast in my negatives. And given delta 3200 is already so grainy, pushing it, especially in xtol, doesn’t seem to make the grain any more apparent than it already is. While definitely not a stock for everyone, it’s certainly versatile within its general aesthetic.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@philipau3847]

K​@@DavidHancock

[@ursaproxima]

Can't wait for youtube to finish process the video so I can watch in HD :D Thanks David! Always great content.

[@DavidHancock]

:D Thank you! They've been getting the 4K processing done pretty quickly this week, so it should be within an hour.

[@DixonLu]

@0:35. Ilford spec sheets says it is an ISO 1000/31° film in daylight, i.e., not ISO 3200. What trips up people are Ilford's development times are for films pushed to EI 3200 with ++ grain/contrast.

[@DavidHancock]

Good catch. I don't know how I missed that. Thank you, David!

[@mantasmargis8324]

Hi David, again - big big big thank You for this video! It is awesome to watch Your photos and listen to Your insights on film stock , developer combinations. Merry Christmas and best of success next Year!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Mantas!

[@GreenlifeFin]

Wow, the best video ever about this film stock! Thanks.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@jonnoMoto]

I recently used this in 120 pulled to 1600 in xtol-r using 1+1@3200 times. I was surprised with what I got. I found it quite pleasant with medium contrast. Yes grainy and not high-resolving but gave my images an old look whilst being able to handhold fine in crappy British winter weather. I've pulled to 1000 in ddx in 35mm and it was very low contrast. Not bad but not something I would look to use. However, when you need 3200 it's a useful tool.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I think XTOL would pair as well as any developer on the market with this. Honestly I wish I used more XTOL so I could have tried it.

[@jw48335]

@@DavidHancock Best combo I've found - DDX stand development 1+9, pre-wash a couple minutes in distilled, meter shadows zone 4, 45 minutes 1600, 50 minutes 2500, 55 minutes 3200, 1hr 6400. You know what I hate? The above beats out every non-stand method I've tried, in every in category - grain size, contrast, accutance, etc. It's annoying, because it means I can't use my Jobo. Oh, and 800/1250/1600 on the same roll I just meter for the highlights and use 40min, with 1600-6400 on the same roll 1hr., with no big penalty. For me, this put D3200 into my top 3 films. From the lab or using the Jobo, it wasn't worth it. I'm afraid to try this with Delta 100 / 400 or others because I'll never use my Jobo again, lol.

[@stefflus08]

I only tried a few developers but very quickly my feeling was that this film wouldn't do anything of what I wanted from it any better than HP5+. So I stopped trying. Thanks for sticking with it so we didn't have to.

[@AizatMazlan]

This is my favourite film. I shot a lot of nighttime portraits with this film

[@DavidHancock]

Great choice for that setting!

[@tonyparatore888]

I used Delta 3200 at box speed and developed it with ID-11... And I came out ok... Not bad at all... The grain is not overbearing... I've printed a few shots in my makeshift darkroom and I'm satisfied...

[@DavidHancock]

Nice! That would be a good combination.

[@tonyparatore888]

@@DavidHancock I think so... I've been having pretty good results with ID-11... With one liter stock I've developed 20 rolls... Not just 10 like Ilford says... I might loose something or gain more grain but I really can't notice...

[@DavidHancock]

@@tonyparatore888 Film is pretty forgiving, especially Ilford, and they're also conservative in their instructions to make sure people get the best results.

[@teddy33131]

I went and shoot it for a concert. i brought some HP5 that i shot at 1600 and delta that was shot at 3200. All was developped in stock ID-11. i found it was quite harsh and really contrasty on its own but smoother grain than the HP5. to my surprise i liked the 3200 better. i tried 24*30cm print from a 35mm neg and it went fine. huge grain of course, but as you said you can't expect delta 100 results. So thank you for this video that will probably allow for some shortcuts for me. it's quite expensive and a specialist film really made for some special projects i think. not my go to film, but some that i will definitely try and understand more in the future. Also do you consider doing this videos on cheaper film like kentmere or foma products ? cheers from france !

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you and good tips! If you're looking for a video on Kentmere, you're going to be very happy on about ten days. For Foma, the 400 video should, I hope, be released end of 2022.

[@RickScheibner]

Looking forward to watching this!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@_guillermo]

I love you man thank you so much for this incredible content🖤

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@tonyhayes9827]

Same as all the others David great review as usual. I agree with all you say. I WANT to like this film though because I love it when it works. `Works' is subjective of course. I rate it at 3200 ASA and use a Sekonic light meter to measure incident light and then develop it at 6400 ASA so I develop it as if I had pushed it one stop but I didn't. So far so good but I have one film in a Pentax spotmatic that I have rated at 1000 and will develop at 3200 and compare. We'll see. I want to become `expert' (haha that'll be the day!) with this film - well at least as good as I can get. When it works its very hard to emulate with digital. Its a point of difference I like.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Tony! Yes, this film definitely performs the best when it's either overexposed or overdeveloped a stop or so.

[@yakovkhalip9714]

I need to buy and shoot more of that film. In most cases I preffered more cheaper Ilford PAN400 - which is a rare subject of YOutube reviews) In most cases it gave good results as 800 or even 1600 with good old stock D-76) Maybe D3200 is much better as 1600iso, I need to make a comparison of them...

[@DavidHancock]

Il Pan 400 still made? Honestly don't know (it would be a while before I can get to a review of it anyway.)

[@pepsiplease69]

Thanks for the review of this film, it was quite informative. I have a roll of it loaded in my Olympus OM2N, ready to shoot. I think I'll take your advice and try shooting in aperture priority and do ISO bracketing, maybe starting with 400 and going up to 1600, and then shoot the rest of the roll at 1250 and see how I like it (and process for 3200). Ilfotec DD-X is my go-to developer, that I'm able to access and use easily so I'm curious to see how it works out and what's my ideal ISO. I mostly shoot portraits of my kid and family members indoors, so the film might be more suitable for my needs, although it'll be near-impossible to unseat HP5 as the resident king-of-film. On a side note, have you considered experimenting with Diafine developer. I'd be interested what your take would be on a compensating developer such as that. Thanks again and loved the review.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! For my next developer order I'm going to branch out and get some new ones. So for the next batch of films, which include things like Foma 400, GP3, and I forget the others, I'll be using Perceptol, Diafine I can try and get, Caffenol, CTOL, etc, as well as some of the ones that I use already.

[@westonharby165]

I've shot this stock several times in various lighting conditions and never liked it. I push hp5 to 3200 and 1600 with microphen stock for very excellent results.

[@DavidHancock]

I would prefer that combo to this, handily. I think you're going to really like the video that goes live two weeks from today. The film in that was incredible at every sensitivity I used, and really shined at 1600.

[@westonharby165]

@@DavidHancock awesome, also look forward to the delta 100 aaf as well as the photo contest!

[@MM-mo9hn]

Very happy when i shot this at 1600.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! That can work well.

[@3SGrover]

I'm planning a portrait photo session in the noir style, according to the canonical rules. I'm thinking about Ortho Plus 80 and/or Delta 3200. In your opinion, David, how will the Delta 3200 perform in limited but contrasting lighting?

[@DavidHancock]

Better than would Ortho. The Ortho will need a LOT of light and if you're using warm light, even more than you think. If you're looking to increase the contract with your 3200, try a blue filter on the lens and warm lighting. But definitely do a test roll first with different light color and filter color combinations.

[@3SGrover]

@@DavidHancock Thank you so much.

[@3SGrover]

@@DavidHancock, I apologize for the possibly stupid question. Maybe it's true I'm stupid :) I have a Pentax p30t. His ISO range 25-1600. What happens if I insert ISO 3200 into it? He won't be able to read it at all and set it to 100 by default?

[@DavidHancock]

@@3SGrover not a stupid question at all. I am not familiar with the p30T. If that doesn't allow manual ISO setting, then yes, I think you're stuck at 100, and that's not going to work.

[@dariogorostizamartinez8401]

I have a Kodak Retina I (type B) from 1937 and can’t understand the concept of setting ISO xd. As far as I know I can only set focal distance, aperture time and diafragma aperture…

[@DavidHancock]

With your camera, there's no ISO to set because it doesn't have an on-camera light meter. IF you download a light meter app from whichever phone system store you use and then set the ISO there and take a reading, that app will tell you the shutter speed and aperture to use for your Retina.

[@Photographyisadrug]

Thank you for a very informative video!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@grahams5871]

I have liked my 120 rolls developed in Hc110B. Have you tried 510 pyro? Everyone seems to be trying that these days. Has decent acutance, and the stain reduces the grain

[@DavidHancock]

Nice and I have not. There are a lot of developers I haven't delved into yet, and Pyro is one.

[@elephant3109]

yo, any chance making a t-max p3200 review? thanks!

[@DavidHancock]

There will be, but not immediately. I have it penciled in for the 2026 season, probably early in the year, and I'll be using the heck out of late this year into early next summer.

[@josephhagins4631]

Great film write up! Can we get one on Kodak T-Max 100!

[@DavidHancock]

That's the last one in this batch, so soon.

[@DixonLu]

@@DavidHancock Will you do one on TMAX P3200 next year? Thx

[@DavidHancock]

@@DixonLu Not next year. I forget how far out that one is, but a ways.

[@ZommBleed]

@@DavidHancock There you go again, David. Counting your chickens before they hatch...unless you're planning on missing the "boat." (Look up....)

[@DavidHancock]

@justme Why is there a boat in the sky?!?

[@Thorpal]

I suppose Kodak reintroduced the Tmax 3200 after realising how bad Ilford was with that Delta. I mean, I have had underexposed Delta 400 looking better that most of the low light shots I have done with the 3200 version, even developed with Ilford DD. The only great shots - in terms of tonality - I've seen with this one were either long exposure or studio lighting. The rest is usually pretty meh at best or plain ugly. In fact, most Kodak/Ilford 400 iso films are better at 3200 than this one. Though I won't vouch for Delta 400 since it doesn't tolerate underexposure well like... all Deltas for that matter ! Have you try Tmax 400 at 3200 ? It's my go to low light in Tmax Dev at 24C/75F for either 9:30 (outside) or 11:30 (dim indoors). Compared to the Tmax 3200 you'll loose some shades of grey but your blacks will be clean and not muddy and you'll even have less grain than Tri-X/HP5. If you know what to do with the available lighting, things will pop. Tmax 3200 has much more grain - really pleasing at 400/800 and develop for that EI and at 3200 with well lit scenes - and will tolerate a bit more underexposure. But for the end result and the price difference I'll stick to the pushed 400 version. Also, can you do a similar video for the late Fuji Neopan 1600 ? I wish I had started photography sooner but it was already dead when I first picked a camera. Like the Tmax 3200...

[@DavidHancock]

I suspect that Kodak has some savvy businesspeople that noticed there was a gap in their lineup, yes, but TMax 3200 is actually an 800 ISO film that can be pushed to 3200. I haven't gotten too much into TMax 400 yet. I try to spread out the film speeds and manufacturers for these so that I can touch on multiple companies each year and, hopefully, help people use their film better or get interested (or disinterested) in new stocks. for TMax 3200, that's a ways out. I forget when, but it's gonna be some time. Neopan 1600 is, I think, discontinued and I'm not doing discontinued films simply because there are too many current film stocks that need quality information about them online.

[@Thorpal]

@@DavidHancock Ah ah, or maybe it's because it's easier to reintroduce low demand products (Tmax 3200/Ektachrome) than a potentially higer one, like Plus-X, which would put pressure on the relatively fragile production of Tmax and Tri-X ? Nonetheless, as your pictures shown, this Delta doesn't live up to Ilford's reputation (at least in 35mm). I know there's no such thing as a true 3200 iso. But if you have to meter at 1600 iso or below and develop as if it were 3200 this ruins the point of having such kind of film stock. Tmax 3200 can be correctly exposed at 3200 in low light, or any EI below and developed accordingly it will look from very nice to very good. And pushing Tmax400, Trix and HP5 at 3200 are also viable and sometimes better options. At best D3200 is ok, but a hell lot expensive for such disapointing result ! Sadly Neopan 1600 is dead since 2010. But I assumed that you might have used it in the past and have an opinion about it. Opinion I wanted you to share since I will never shoot it myself...

[@faiosung]

its flatness is useful to allow more manipulation in software

[@DavidHancock]

Definitely yes.

[@VariTimo]

There is some incredibly unclear language in this. If you pull a film, that means you pull develop it. Which for Delta 3200 would be a development time for anything lower than 1000 ASA. This is because Delta 3200 was designed to be pushed to 3200 and does not have an actual speed of 3200. This is also noted in the spec sheet. Delta 3200’s actual sensitivity is 1000-1250 ASA, depending on the developer. And 3200 would be a 1 1/2 stop push. It’s very similar to Kodak’s TMax p3200, where the “P” for push is in the name. I personally did not find the film to be too contrasty considering the push when developed in CineStills DF96. Nor did I find it to be outrageously grainy when developed without a push in X-Tol. I also think it’s vital that you start sharing your scanning process in detail for these videos. Since a film negative is only half of the photographic look and can not be judged by itself without a clearly communicated method of display prep.

[@DavidHancock]

Fair points, which is why I have other entire videos detailing how I digitize images and the post-processing workflow.

[@VariTimo]

@@DavidHancock Yeah but people who‘re just look for information for a specific film will probably not go through the channel before they watch the video.

[@DavidHancock]

I understand your point and I don't disagree. I do note in the videos how I recommend to obtain digital images. However, going into more detail than that, these videos are already flirting with a half-hour. These aim to be a detailed primer for people to put them on the right course, not a be-all-end-all fully comprehensive study.

[@VariTimo]

@@DavidHancock I’d say they’re much closer to “be all end all” studies than detailed primers. And with the length this great already the threshold for someone non committed to rather not click has already been crossed.